because we fought back, because we said it was wrong, because we weren't bullied by the journal news, justice prevailed, and gun permit holders in new york state won a victory this week. hello and welcome to justice. i'm judge jeanine pirro. last night the journal news at westchester gannett newspapers that managed to ignite a national furor by releasing the names and addresses of lawful gun holders in a pedophile active map surrendered. the map came down. the reason? we decided to remove the gun permit data fro at 5 p.m. today.

while the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe in doing so complies with its spirit. you're kidding, right? the new law doesn't require that you remove anything? don't you love it when the loser tries to make it look like you really won, like he's taking the high road, like the decision to retreat was really a voluntary one, and o by the way, since you refuse to speak on this issue for weeks as you hit behind your bodyguards with guns, what hole did you climb out of to wave your white flag? i think you're scared that the two homes you identified as having guns that were burglarized wer where guns were taken might have played into your convenient surrender. even your own employees felt your newspaper put them at risk. >> i agree with you, and i am on

your side on this. >> so you're concerned that if you say you're gun free, somebody with a gun is going to come and -- >> i think, yeah. >> so why don't you just admit you had an agenda and you tried to connect gun permit holders to the massacre of innocents in newtown? you put law-abiding citizens at risk. so how do we stop the massacres like the one that occurred in newtown? president obama this week rolled up his sleeves and here are a few of his suggestions. number seven, launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. now, do you really think a criminal in possession of an illegal gun about to commit a crime is going to stop and take a listen to your responsible gun ownership campaign? and number four, the president says that he will direct the attorney general to review the category of individuals

prohibited from having a gun. really? aren't all criminals and the mental ill already prohibited from having a gun? that hasn't stopped them. number 11. the president says there should be a nomination of an atf director. by the way, mr. president, isn't that something you should have done during the fast and furious debacle when we were furiously shipping assault rifles into the hands of the mexican drug cartel? and the president's number 13. maximize enforcement effort to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crimes. this from a president under whose watch gun crime prosecutions have gone down 40%. now, i dedicated my professional life to prosecuting criminals. i've been on every side of the gun issue. i've arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced gun traffickers. i reviewed pistol permits to

determine who should even carry a gun and i have fought for tougher gun laws. you want to know how to stop gun crime? it doesn't start with the punishment of law-abiding citizens. you don't hamper us in the exercise of our second amendment rights. what you do is you prosecute gun crimes. you increase the penalties for any illegal gun possession, and the use of guns in any crime. you create mandatory minimum sentences for gun criminals. you coordinate investigation with local prosecuters who have their ear to the ground. you don't limit the number of bullets in our magazines, so that the criminal gets to outgun us. you allow for the confinement of the dangerously mentally ill, and you require those in the mental health profession to report these individuals to authorities and prosecute those

professionals if they don't tell us. and by the way, mr. president, noticeably absent from this wish list is any mention of violent movies and video games that are so much a part of our pop culture. the hollywood glitterati, bless them, have demanded a plan to push gun regulation. take a listen. >> columbine. virginia tech, tucson, aurora, fort hood, demand a plan. right now. >> as a mom. >> as a dad. as a friend. >> demand a plan. now, i love the movies, but i hate hypocracy, especially hollywood hypocracy, the same people who make billions selling violence as a normal way of life want you to take away our guns. just look at some of the most popular movies now. some nominated for academy awards, and their plan is to

take our guns away, the guns of law abiding citizens? but they oppose any effort to curb the violence in their world. the entertainment merchants association that made $35 billion warned against even investigating a link between movie videos and real life violence. quote, make no mistake. blaming movies and video games is an attempt to distract the attention of the public and the media from meaningful action that will keep our children safer. really? they think their first amendment is more important than our second amendment. so much for the blood-soaked entertainment industry. now, mr. president, you lambasted the congress people who get money from the nra. >> ask them what's more important. doing whatever it takes to get an a grade from the gun lobby

that funds their campaigns or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade. >> by the way, the nra has an approval rating of the 53% which is even higher than your approval rating. even the american public disagrees with you. would there be less violent crime in the u.s. if guns were banned? 28% say yes, but they say if 58% say if more law abiding people had guns, there would be less violent crime. now, mr. president, aren't you indebted to the entertainment industry because they supported you? are you doing whatever it takes to get your a-grade from the hollywood lobby that funded your campaign? why not give law-abiding americans the right to defend themselves? after all, it is a god-given

constitutional right. with me now is syndicated columnist and author michelle merhamichellemalkin. thanks so much for being here. >> it's my pleasure. you're on target, judge jeanine. >> i'm very curious what you have t to say about this whole thing, this media influence and the fact that the president in 23 of his recommendations didn't even mention the media or hollywood. >> well, the silence is certainly deaf inning, and i think over the last several months we've seen a massive collective overdose of hypocracy on the part of so many of these outspoken hollywood anti-gunners. these gun grabbers who want to disavow any, absolutely any responsibility at all for their own role in glam rising guns and profiting off of it, and like i said, you're right on target in talking about how president

obama and his team and this administration has owed so much to the entertainment industry. now you've got the entertainment merchants association essentially threatening the white house against doing anything to plumb the correlation, the relationship between violent culture and what we're seeing with these outbreaks. now, make no mistake. i am certainly myself not claiming that it is hollywood producers, any individual one of them, that's responsible for any of these massacres. >> however, we're talking about the double standards here, because you can hear from any number of these hollywood liberals who will jump at any opportunity to criticize conservative rhetoric in the most ridiculous ways. if we use me metaphors that inve targets. >> of course. >> you remember how vicious they were with sarah palin, and yet

they cannot apply that same thinking to their own tactics, to their own products. >> not to mention michael moore, remember his bodyguard. he's so anti-gun, but his bodyguard was arrested for having an unlicensed gun. michelle, i want to move into an area that i think is fascinating where in this 23-point wish list of the president, he talks about the fact that he wants to clarify that the affordable care act does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes. now, the way i envision this is i go to the doctor, i say to the doctor gee, my foot hurts, and the doctor then says you got a gun? i mean, what does that have to do with the diagnosis and treatment that i'm going to the doctor for? >> yeah. i think this raises all sorts of red flags, and i reported on this earlier this week that unfortunately there is a liberal leadership among many medical associations, the ama, the american medical association, the aap, the american academy of pediatrics, and for a long time

dating back to at least the clinton years, many of these associations have been very brazen in their anti-gun agenda, and in fact, going so far as to talk about wholesale bans on hand guns, and the continued demonization of law abiding gun owners which is what you talked about in your opening statement. what i think that obama is doing and signaling with this hipaa sort of directive here is that he's encouraging them to be even more snitchy and snoopy than they've already been. >> kind of shocking to go to the doctor and having the president recommend and make sure that the doctors know that they can and should be asking about guns. kind of craidz crazy, in my mind. thanks for being with us this evening. >> you bet. coming up, the second amendment. they couldn't be more opposite in their interpretation of what it means. and later, the prosecution rests in the trial of jody air i can't say on trial for the brutal

murder of her exboyfriend. do the jurors' question a possibly cas casey anthony like verdict?

>> it appears we're headed toward a constitutional battle toward the first and second amendment. can they co exist in our society today. with me is elliot fineman, the president of the national gun victims council from chicago and stephen hallbrook here in studio, outside counsel to the nra. gentlemen, thanks for being with me this evening. stephen, i'll start with you. you just handed me the book you wrote on the founders second amendment, origin of the right to bear arms. right now we're seeing an effort on the part of many people in the aftermath of newtown to cut back on second amendment rights. now, as i understand the second amendment, it is a god-given right that the -- the writers of the substitution felt that it shouldn't be infringed. why all of a sudden is there an

effort because crazy people take someone else's guns to eliminate guns? >> the framers of our substitutioconstitution wanted e society. they thought recognition of the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for it. when bad things happen in society, you can attribute that to many factors, but it's not the case that law-abiding people should be blamed for these things, these incidents that take place either by criminals or mad men. in fact, when it says that the right should not be infringed, it means that the people have a right to have ordinary rifles, pistols, and shotguns, to keep them in their homes, to bear arms, and that makes for a free society. you can protect yourself from criminals. >> let me ask you, elliot. do you disagree with what steve is saying regarding the second amendment and the right of the individual to bear arms? >> well, this is not up for discussion any more. the supreme court has said that the individual can have a gun at

home or guns at home for self defense in the home. the supreme court has also said that we can have reasonable regulations. i disagree with you, judge, when you say this is a god-given right. >> i understand that. yes. i understand that. >> that's another conversation. >> no. look. let's just agree that it is the second amendment to the substitution, and we can leave it at that. but it is a right that people have, and in the city of chicago where guns have been taken from people, it's one of the most violent cities in the country. how do we make the connection between violent crime and taking away people's guns? >> well, first of all, let's admit that guns were taken away in chicago, just as it's a myth that they were taken away in dc. the gun trafficking means, just as a myth, by the way, that there was an assault weapons ban. the guns in chicago get here through trafficking. there are as many guns here

whether we have -- you know, on the street, whether we have a law against them or not. >> but elliot, what's been taken away are the legal gun owners' rights to have a gun, the illegals always have them. how do we balance this so people can defend themselves. >> well, first of all, the concept of the law-abiding gun owner to me is very strange. we don't talk about the law-abiding driver. we talk about the legal driver. every criminal, bear in mind, was once a law-abiding citizen. this is not a a constant, that because somebody's obeying the law today, they're going to obey it tomorrow. that's why we have regulations. >> are you assuming because someone has gotten a gun legally that you're going to assume that they are going to act illegally with that weapon? >> i'm going to assume they have the potential to act illegally. i'm also going to question whether they got it legally in a

very appropriate manner. you know as well as i do. >> i know. i signed permits. this is judicial. >> yes. >> judicially approved. steve, do you agree with that? >> not at all. there's 50% of the households in this country have firearms in them. most americans are law abiding. we're talking about a very distinct group of criminals who are mostly recidivists. they commit one ability of violence after another, and to think that a normal person who clears the background checks to buy guns in this country, that everybody has to take when they buy a gun from a dealer, to think they're suddenly going to become a wild-eyed criminal and kill people, i mean, that's mind boggling. there's normal people and then there's the criminal case. >> all right, elliot, stephen, thanks for being with us this evening. would you turn your gun in for a gift card to target? up next, we're going to talk to a man who managed to get a cache of guns off the street. we'll talk about this

sheriff who says he'll refuse to comply with any directive from vice-president joe biden regarding the passage of gun laws that he believes would harm law-abiding citizens.

>> we'd offer money, concert tickets, sneakers, anything to get guns off the street. no questions asked. i'm joined now by pastor emmett tate who regularly does a gun buy back program in cincinnati, and todd rat ner, a lobbyist for the arizona state rifle and pistol association who said the gun buy back programs don't

work. so gentlemen, thanks for being with me this evening. i'm going to start with you, pastor taste. you are involved in a gun buy back program, and i was fascinated by what i read about your program that you are -- you believe in this so strongly that you were willing to put on your own charge card money that you needed to give people, you know, cash or a card at target to get their guns. why do you believe in this so strongly? >> i believe in life. i believe that the efforts that we made here in cincinnati were a milestone for us. one of the things that is very important is that we raise the awareness about gun safety, and one of the things that we have done is just to let people know that it is not about challenging the second amendment. it's not about challenging their right to have guns, but it's about raising awareness whether or not that gun is the perfect things or the best thing to have in the house where children may or may not have access to the gun who may or may not end up in a tragedy. >> todd, you are in arizona and

you objected to what is it, the destruction of guns in a gun buy back program. you feel that those guns should be what, put back on the streets? >> well, thank you for having me, judge. what we think is that when the city takes property, we don't have a problem with a buyback that is funded by private funds and run by private organizations. what we have a problem with is when the city takes in an asset like that and simply destroys it when our state law, the arizona state law, says that those firearms must be sold to a federal rally licensed firearms dealer and they can be sold back to the public who would have to go through background checks. >> todd, you want these guns back in circulation. pastor, should these guns go back in circulation, what should happen to them? >> if people are turning them in, i believe once we turn them over to the police department, they know all the laws and whether or not they should go back into circulation. i just believe if families have

turned them in and they've submitted them, then i think they should be destroyed. they brought them in for that reason. otherwise, they he would have sold them or taken them to a place where they could exchange them for cash. >> all right. >> bringing them to us means they want them off the streets. >> but gentlemen, irrespective of what happens afterwards, there's so many studies and so many people, i don' i don't hapo believe it, that think that these gun buy back programs serve absolutely no purpose, that they have at best a 1 to 2% impact on gun violence in our country, and they feel that most of these guns are already broken or they weren't going to be used anyway, that a real criminal won't come in for the 50 or a hundred bucks we give them. todd, what do you think about that? >> i think that's true. if you look at the 200 guns that were turned in based on reports that i had from people that were on the scene that were watching that know guns, it was basically junk guns in parts and broken things that were turned in, and no drug dealer or psychopath

that's going to hurt people with a fire arm is going to turn it in for a $50 gift card to safeway. it's just not going to happen. what you are seeing is possibly families that don't want the gun in the house. that's fine. if they want to turn it in and get a $50 gift card, i don't have a problem with that. >> okay. >> what i have a problem with is the city destroying it in violation of arizona state law. >> got it. >> but gentlemen, and i agree with both of you. i think it's worth it if we get one gun off the street irrespective of what the law dictates that we do after we get them. todd rathner and pastor tait, thanks so much for being with us this evening. >> thanks for having us. coming up, the white house assault on the second amendment rights meets some fierce resistance. now one oregon sheriff is fighting back, and be sure to vote in our justice instant poll. go to our facebook or twitter at judge jeanine and tell me what you think the punishment should be for murder in the first degree.

intelligence information to them. now back to the judge. ♪ janie's got a gun. >> one oregon sheriff said he will not enforce any gun laws he believes violate the substitution. he's not backing down. joining me now is lynn county sheriff tim mueller from albany, oregon. sheriff, thanks for being with

us. >> glad to be here, you're honor. >> now, sheriff, you took an oath to support the constitution of the united states as well as an oath to enforce and follow the laws of the land. you've made a very interesting statement that if some of these federal proposals come to oregon or are passed in congress that you will not enforce them and you will instruct your dew points to not enforce them. how do you justify that? >> well, i justify it pretty easily because as a county sheriff or any local police officer or any sheriff that knows their business will tell you that he we don't have to enforce federal law. as a matter of fact, we're prohibited from enforcing most federal laws, so there is a separation of powers and you know, i don't have to and we won't. >> well, an interestingly enough, even the federal immigration laws, and yet there is this -- this movement on the part of washington to restrict,

you know, the size of clips, the kind of assault rifles that you can and cannot have, making it illegal in new york. now, the toughest gun laws in the country to even have a magazine that can carry more than seven clips which makes everybody's magazine, you know, out of, you know, out of sync with the law. do you think that this kind of thing secures the public? will this kind of thing prevent an incident like newtown? >> it's not going to prevent any crime if somebody uses a gun. the only thing it's going to do is it's going to limit the amount of protection that honest law abiding citizens can use to defend themselves when the crook that shows up and tries to kick their door in and gains access into their house disregards those laws because they're not going to turn their magazines or them semi automatic weapons in.

they won't do that. they're criminals. all you're going to do is make honest citizens easier targets. >> and of course, to your point, sheriff, is the woman from georgia who hit an intruder five times, i believe, after she shot him with her gun, and yet the guy was still able to get out. now, if she lived in new york and was following the law as we are supposed to, then she could have been in a situation where she and her children could have been in serious jeopardy. but very quickly, sheriff, what is the feeling of the people in jury state? i understand there's a movement now to make it a crime for anyone to try to enforce laws that you feel are unconstitutional. >> there are several other states that have. >> mississippi. >> there's 13 others. >> texas, etc. >> texas, right, and i believe idaho, wyoming. yeah. that's not -- there's nothing like that so far that i know of. i mean, the legislature is just

getting really to reconvene. i'm not sure if there's anything on the books. i kind of doubt it. we'll see. >> all right. sheriff mueller, thanks so much for being with us this evening. >> i'm glad to be here. >> okay. coming up, what should the punishment be for murder 1. think about it.

>> jodi arias is accused of shooting, stabbing, and slitting the throat of her exboyfriend. prosecutors are seeking death, but whether it's stoning,

dismemberment, burning or lethal injection, capital punishment has always been controversial. so what should the sentence be for taking another's life? four modern day killers, four different outcomes. charles manson, convicted in 1971 for the murders of nine people including the pregnant sharon tate. the jury gave him death, but that was changed to life with the possibility of parole. manson is now housed in the special wing reserved for inmates at risk from others. he continues to violate the rules, having twice been caught with a cell phone that he uses to call people across the country. jeffrey dahmer, nec he was convd in 1992 and sentenced to life for the murder of 17 men and boys. after a year in prison, his good behavior put him in a less restricted area. dahmer was allowed 15 magazines, 30 books, four newspapers, a bible, two phone calls, and three visitors a week.

he also had a tv, a radio in his cell, and he was allowed to attend classes and work. that didn't work out so well. in 1994dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate. john wayne gacy was sentenced to death in 1980 for murdering at least 33 people. gacy lived on death row for 14 years. he described his living area as a 7 by 8 foot cell with bars in front and stone walls on the side and back. the psychotic former children's party clown was allowed visitors including a female pen pal who claimed to be in love with him. and finally, scott peterson. convicted in 2004 of the brutal murder of his wife lacy and their unborn child on christmas eve. he was sentenced to death and is currently on death row. sound bad? peterson is allowed five hours of activity a day out of his

cell including basketball, jogging, board games. he's allowed six cubic feet of personal items in his cell which most likely includes stacks of fan mail sent to him from adoring female fans. i'm joined now by a young man that i have known for years. in 2000 rudy torrez' mother, brother, and sister were brutally murdered. i was a d.a. at the time and asked for the death penalty. the killer was convicted of three counts of murder 1, and his fate was then in the jury's hands. after only a few hours of deliberation, the jury told the sitting judge, kenneth lange, that they couldn't agree on a sentence. instead of sending them back to deliberate further, the judge took it upon himself to impose a sentence of life in prison, and after that, it was over. rudy said that what happened in that courtroom was an injustice,

that the killers' family asked for mercy, but when his mother asked for mercy, she got none. that's a picture of me and rudy right there right after that decision. it's been more than a decade since that day, and i still remember the heartbreak that rudy felt when he didn't get the justice he thought his family deserved. rudy joins me now and right there is a picture of him with his mom right before she died. how are you, rudy? >> i'm doing okay, thank you. thanks for having me. >> how old are you, rudy? >> i'm 23. going to be 24 this year. >> we met, you were 12? >> i believe so, yeah. >> a decade ago now. >> it was a decade ago, and you lost your 4-year-old sister, your 7-year-old brother, your mother. your 11-year-old brother, vincent. >> yes. >> he was stabbed 11 times as i recall. >> yes, he was. >> he ended up testifying at the trial. how is vincent? >> vincent is okay.

he's actually expecting, he's going to be a father in a few months now. he's working, got his life on track, thank god, and everything is going good for him. i'm happy. >> and how about for you? >> everything is going good for me as well. just trying to do the best things that that i can with my time, put the past behind me and look forward and hope for great things in the future. >> i just want to tell our viewers for a second. you know, rudy, i guess it was an angel that was watching him because the night that all of this happened, he went next door to his grandparents' house to stay. >> yes. that's correct. i was next door. >> so it doesn't affect you. >> no, it didn't affect you. >> not directly. >> not directly it didn't, but it's just so strange to have something happen like that and just get a feeling to tell you to get up and go, you know. it kind of makes me feel that maybe i'm here for a reason, you know, to help people or help my brother, anyone that might go through a similar situation.

>> well, rudy, how did you get through it? >> i think the only way you really can get through it is loved ones, friends, family, the grace of god. i mean, there's no really -- there's not really any words to describe how to get through something like that. it's one of those situations where you would have to actually go through it to know how it feels, and i don't think a lot of people can actually sit here and tell you how something like that would feel unless they've actually gone through it. >> one of the things i remember you saying at that press conference after the judge said i'm not going to send them back. in fact, i think it was memorial day weekend, the friday before memorial day. the judge let them go. i'll give them life. you were so disappointed. you thought it was an injustice. why? >> well, it's very unfortunate that someone who commits a crime as gruesome as that can get the opportunity to see their family, make phone calls, even see another sunrise, and innocent people such as my mother, my two

siblings have to spend the rest of their life in a gravy, you gi find that so unfair and i think there should be something done to change that. >> so what do you thin think shd happen? in particular in your case, this was your mother's boyfriend at the time. >> yes, it was. >> and did you ever suspect as a child that this guy could really be capable of this kind of massacre? >> honestly, at first he seemed like a nice guy, but as time went on, we started to see -- well, n not we. i started to see things that should have raised flags for my mother, and i'm sure they did, but i guess it was the love that blinded her or -- >> let me ask you this, rudy. what do you think should have happened to hernandez. >> i think he should have been put to death. i believe he deserved capital punishment. >> all right. so you have lived it. you actually saw the crime scene. you walked into the house. i was in that house. it was as horrific as you can

imagine. your little sister and brother still in their bunk beds. when you hear about john wayne gacy and scott peterson and charles manson and dahmer, i mean, in all of these cases, do you think it should be death? what do you think is more punishment? i understand death in the case of the man who killed your family, but is it more punishment for them to spend a life in prison? i think no. inmates have things available to them, magazines, radios, daily meals. i wouldn't call that punishment, you know. >> what about work camps? there are as many countries that have labor camps, and they assign prisoners to them, you know. korea, burma, china, russia. there are loads of countries. what do you think of them, making them work? still death? >> yes.

i would still have to say death because they're working workingt change the crimes they committed. i think they should still be punished, and they should be judged based on the crimes that they committed. >> all right. rudy torrez, it's good to see you again. i am so proud of you. >> thank you. >> keep going forward. >> thank you. coming up, the prosecution rests in the jodi arias case. find out why some court watchers aren't so sure they proved their case to this jury.

>> you're going to continue to tell me you didn't do this to him? >> i did not kill travis. if i had it in me anywhere to kill him, the least i could have done was make it humane as

possible or quick or something. >> is that how you want to leave it? you want to stop here and that's how you want to leave it? >> i know he that i didn't take travis' life, and i know he -- >> i know you did. >> okay. no, you don't believe me. >> i don't believe you. >> the state has rested their case in the jodi arias murder trial. before the trial was adjourned, the georgia had a chance daughter the jurors had a chance to ask witnesses question. listen to what they wanted to know from the lead detective in the case. >> the georgia hav jurors have r you. were there any sets of knives that appeared to be missing a knife? >> no. we didn't find anything like that. >> was the gun that was used to kill mr. alexander found in miss arias' possession? >> no, it was not. >> when you personally interviewed mr. alexander's roommates, was there ever a mention of their concern for his extended absence june 4th

through june 9th? >> no. they believed he was in mexico already. they didn't know his schedule. >> what were the alibis given by those roommates? >> one was working and the other was actually staying at his girlfriend's home and they were house sitting for her parents. >> with me is attorney steve greenberg who was part of the defense team for drew peterson in his murder trial. all right, steve. you heard those questions. it kind of -- you have to wonder. is this going to end up in a casey anthony not guilty? the woman actually said finally that she was there and she killed him in self defense. now the jury wants to know if his friends had alibis? >> well, i don't think it's going to end up in a not guilty. it may just be one juror just prying. people watch tv and that want these loose ends, everyone thinks they're csi or hawaii-50

or a person wanting loose ends. the fact is her attorney stood up in opening statement and said she did it, so i don't know how there could be any doubt that she did it because her attorneys admitted she did it. >> what's interesting also, were there any knives missing from her house. i mean, how do you know how many knives she had in the first place? >> it was knives from his house, but you know, she -- after the murder, she then goes to utah and the police don't see her for five days, but look at what she did. she turned her license plate upside down so she couldn't be seen. she changed her hair color when she went there. she asked for the rental car place, they were going to give her a nice red car. she said no, i want a white car that's going to blend in. she made up story after story after story. i will tell you. if they get her off, especially after saying she did it, then every defendant in the country should hire these guys. >> by the way, there's no insanity defense, is there? >> no. she planned and went in the bathroom and took picture of him. >> put the camera in the washing

machine. >> who is that crazy? >> well, that might be stupidity, but she went in the bathroom. the whole thing from the pictures to the time it's over is less than two minutes. she took a gun and a knife into the bathroom. >> you know he what's interesting is, you know he if she's the victim of domestic violence, how did she know that night there was going to be a problem and she went to her grasp' and said their home was burglarized that she used to stab him 27times and slit him ear to ear. >> if she's a victim of domestic violence, she doesn't have any injuries. i don't know where they're going with this, but i don't know if they'll get the death penalty. he doesn't seem just to be a perfect individual. >> why isn't he perfect? i haven't heard anything about him that's bad. by the way, you don't get death because he wasn't a great human being. he wasn't a drug dealer or something. >> no, but there is some evidence of mistreatment.

>> of what mistreatment? he moved on from her. he had a girlfriend. he was taking her to another island. he was jealous. what did he do wrong. you're a defense attorney, steve. that's the problem. >> that's not a problem. >> it is a problem. you want to blame the victim. what did this guy do other than show her a good time? >> he showed her a good time but every murder doesn't automatically qualify for the death penalty. >> but this does qualify. >> they are seeking it, but there's some indication that in their relationship she was mistreated by him. >> oh, prove it. >> we're going to. look, they asked for eight days so they can work on it. >> how many years has she been in jail? >> a long time. >> what, three, four years? okay, steve. before we go, i have to ask you about the manti t'eo story, the notre dame football star who had the imaginary girlfriend who died. yesterday he talked to espn and he claims he was duped. what say you? >> i say he's duping us. i don't think that a star linebacker at notre dame is going to have an imaginary girlfriend like a blowu blowup l

that he never meets that he talks about and talks about, and after notre dame says he told them she didn't exist, he still was going on with it, so unfortunately i think this was to raise his profile which it did, but i hope the bears don't draft him. >> well, i don't know about the bears, but i can tell you this. i mean, you know, for notre dame to stand by his side, that's pretty scary. i'm starting to question their judgment as well. >> he brought a lot of to the university. what are they going to do. they've got crisis management experts. >> it's all about the team, steve. anyway, thanks for being with us. all right. now, we've talked a lot tonight about crime and punishment which brings us to our instant poll question. we asked you what you thought was the right punishment for firsmurder in the first degree. our viewers are clearly in the pro death penalty camp. here's what you said. joyce s., like the bible says, an eye for an eye. stephen l., why should taxpayers carry the burden of keeping a killer fed, clothed, and healthy

for the rest of his life? edward o. has perhaps the worst punishment for murder. he writes lock 'em up and make them watch msnbc. edward, that's cruel and unusual punishment. that's it for us tonight. thanks for joining us. remember to friend me on facebook and follow me on twitter at judge jeanine. join me this wednesday, january 23rd, at 6 p.m. eastern time for an on line live question and answer precast to discuss my new book, sly fox. you can link to the event at the address on the screen or through the justice show page on foxnews.com. bye!

♪ [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, children laughing ] move to the country, d live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married,

they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.